From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah but their not arguing the atheist position. It has no position.

Your arguing with the scientists in them.

Coomba98

Oh, on scientific grounds. Now I see...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

Again your biases are poking out.

Please show evidence to support your assertion against Atheism. As a polytheist, I don't see this dishonesty you are citing,.

Perhaps, putting the helmet on the other way 'round might make it easier to see?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay buddy.

What do have against athletes?

Alls it is is 'the rejection of god/s'

What do you have against that?

Coomba98

Nothing against athletes, really (ran an Ultra-Marathon a few years ago, but I'm more generally of a sedentary disposition. The Marathon wrecked me, physically, for two weeks, probably due to poor preparation. At least I didn't come last, which also shows that I have a competitive spirit, a factor in the way I live my life and a motive as to why I might argue the case for something that I believe).

As a Theist, my beliefs at simply odds with those of Atheism. Also, as a Theist and a rationalist, reason and a certain degree of honesty are important to me. Atheists are not so constrained and it shows.

Atheists pretend that their view point is more rational, more evident and a conclusion of great intellect, which annoys me. It has no more validity in those areas than any other belief.

But...its not a competition. There is no prize, no acclaim. This forum is anonymous. Why does it annoy you if someone disagrees?

Ditto.

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Noinden

Take the CERN for example. Their "singularity" is God from my pov.

Thats an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I dont know therefore God.

Coomba98

How is "I don't know, therefore: NOT God" any less an argument from ignorance?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well we can't measure that which we've not defined

Getting humanity to agree on what the devine is... sort of has killed a lot of humanity thus far

100% of them ancient humans have died to date.

Did they all die of religion or did murder, accident, contagion and starvation, perhaps, kill a few?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: MamaJ

Why not a polytheit, it makes the most spiritual sense to me. My gnosis says so. That is all you can do with faith

I'm a Chemist and Biochemist (Phd level), who works in the Pharmaceutical industry as a Process Development Scientist. I have done so for over a decade.

Answering the question with a question? Ha! So you dont want to say what lead you to the faith in not just A God but GODS? Okay...

You state you keep your work out of said faith... How do you do that? Is this a question you can answer?

Like I said before Science isn't supposed to prove or disprove something which they cannot measure and never will be able to measure. To say we will one day is ignorant in my opinion. Unless the invisible becomes visible.. it's a no go.

Also I say the Universe is infinite yet one day we will be able to measure it is also ignorant imo.

How do we know what we observe only exists because there is an observer. Doesn't QM say particles pop in and out of existence?

We still can't define or measure reality but we know it exists.

Again... I leave God up to the Philosophers.. not Science. They are too busy with their yard sticks. IF ( a big IF) anything does develop it will come out of the Quantum field of Science.

Regarding CERN.. I know their mission statement but that doesn't mean there is not an agenda to find the invisible like God, dimensions, the beginning of the "Big Bang". I agree the term "God Particle" is sensational but didn't Hawkings refer to to it as such? Matter of fact Hawkings wasn't all that happy about us messing with the field from what I can remember. If the Higgs field is in a minimum potential energy state sounds to me like this is a state before creation. For those who believe in a creator... just goes hand in hand for the faithful from my pov.

originally posted by: chr0naut
How is "I don't know, therefore: NOT God" any less an argument from ignorance?

I love how you keep trying to tell other people what their arguments are, but keep failing. It seems like the wheels have become unhinged at this point.

The argument is: "There is no evidence for god, therefor no reason to believe in the existence of god. However, I could be convinced if evidence were to be discovered."

Most self proclaimed atheists and agnostics are actually agnostic atheists as many have already stated in the thread. It's just the logical rejection of a claim that has no evidence, nothing more, regardless of how you keep trying to sensationalize the atheist viewpoint or flip the burden of proof from where it should be.

You basically went off on this tangent about atheism to hide the flaws in your philosophical "proofs" for god and now the thread has devolved completely.

a reply to: chr0naut

No one said "I don't know, therefore: NOT God" that would be a proclaiming an absolute.
" I don't know," is the opposite of an absolute, we will leave the absolutes up to religious fallacy.

a reply to: chr0naut

Did I state that? No I stated that arguments over religion has caused death. Can you disprove that?

a reply to: MamaJ

No I answered the question viz "my gnosis says so." It makes sense to me on a gut instinct level. I've yet to be proven wrong (or right mind you). I've several spiritual experiences to confirm this to me, but it is an unverifiable personal gnosis (UPG) none the less

The God particle was not named so by Hwakings. Why do people with little scientific understanding always go to him?

Can you post citations about what Hawkings feels? I will give you a hint. What he feels is immaterial. Feelings have no place in physical sciences, only evidence (see I turned it back to your first post at me ).

Cern is not trying to do anything with God. Its a nice conspiracy, but I know physcists enough to know, they will be focusing on sub atomic particles. Just as I am focused on delivering the correct quantity, of the correct API (Active Pharmaceutical ingredient) at the correct time, or sooner. Science is a Job, not a religion, no matter what the faithful think about us. My religion is my polytheism.

a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps taking one of your eye patches off will let you see as well What I do see is you trying very hard to be considered "right" so your little dogma is seen as correct.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay buddy.

What do have against athletes?

Alls it is is 'the rejection of god/s'

What do you have against that?

Coomba98

Nothing against athletes, really (ran an Ultra-Marathon a few years ago, but I'm more generally of a sedentary disposition. The Marathon wrecked me, physically, for two weeks, probably due to poor preparation. At least I didn't come last, which also shows that I have a competitive spirit, a factor in the way I live my life and a motive as to why I might argue the case for something that I believe).

As a Theist, my beliefs at simply odds with those of Atheism. Also, as a Theist and a rationalist, reason and a certain degree of honesty are important to me. Atheists are not so constrained and it shows.

Atheists pretend that their view point is more rational, more evident and a conclusion of great intellect, which annoys me. It has no more validity in those areas than any other belief.

But...its not a competition. There is no prize, no acclaim. This forum is anonymous. Why does it annoy you if someone disagrees?

Ditto.

it doesnt annoy me, however you have already admitted it does annoy you. ergo, no ditto.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Noinden

Take the CERN for example. Their "singularity" is God from my pov.

Thats an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I dont know therefore God.

Coomba98

How is "I don't know, therefore: NOT God" any less an argument from ignorance?

because everything that has been historically credited to a theological force has since been demonstrated to be natural phenomena. all of these mistaken assumptions tell a story of ignorance...but not ignorance in favor of theology.

a reply to: chr0naut

I never sought to hide anything about any rational deficiencies inherent in the philosophical and mathematical "proofs" of Theism. I merely showed that those same rational deficiencies equally plague the antithesis, Atheism.

can you demonstrate how these rational deficiencies equally plague atheism?

im also interested in whether you can unravel the mysteries of ignosticism with the same confidence that you criticize atheism.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
How is "I don't know, therefore: NOT God" any less an argument from ignorance?

I love how you keep trying to tell other people what their arguments are, but keep failing. It seems like the wheels have become unhinged at this point.

The argument is: "There is no evidence for god, therefor no reason to believe in the existence of god. However, I could be convinced if evidence were to be discovered."

Most self proclaimed atheists and agnostics are actually agnostic atheists as many have already stated in the thread. It's just the logical rejection of a claim that has no evidence, nothing more, regardless of how you keep trying to sensationalize the atheist viewpoint or flip the burden of proof from where it should be.

You basically went off on this tangent about atheism to hide the flaws in your philosophical "proofs" for god and now the thread has devolved completely.

I asked the question: How is "I don't know, therefore: NOT God" any less an argument from ignorance' compared with the statement "I dont know therefore God".

A more appropriate response, on your part, might have been to answer the question.

The atheist argument is not, as you stated; "There is no evidence for god, therefore no reason to believe in the existence of god. However, I could be convinced if evidence were to be discovered", that is clearly the agnostic argument. Also, surely it is redundant to suggest that someone is an Atheist based solely upon agnostic argument. A simpler and clearer definition is to simply call such belief, Agnostic.

"There is no god" does not equal "There might be a god but I don't know".

I never sought to hide anything about any rational deficiencies inherent in the philosophical and mathematical "proofs" of Theism. I merely showed that those same rational deficiencies equally plague the antithesis, Atheism.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: MamaJ

No I answered the question viz "my gnosis says so." It makes sense to me on a gut instinct level. I've yet to be proven wrong (or right mind you). I've several spiritual experiences to confirm this to me, but it is an unverifiable personal gnosis (UPG) none the less

The God particle was not named so by Hwakings. Why do people with little scientific understanding always go to him?

Can you post citations about what Hawkings feels? I will give you a hint. What he feels is immaterial. Feelings have no place in physical sciences, only evidence (see I turned it back to your first post at me

).

Cern is not trying to do anything with God. Its a nice conspiracy, but I know physcists enough to know, they will be focusing on sub atomic particles. Just as I am focused on delivering the correct quantity, of the correct API (Active Pharmaceutical ingredient) at the correct time, or sooner. Science is a Job, not a religion, no matter what the faithful think about us. My religion is my polytheism.

Gnosis wasn't what I was looking for in an answer regarding how you came to believe in many Gods... experience was though. Gnosis is too easy. I just know... how do you know.. oh from experience. Gotcha !!

Thanks for clarifying. Experience's mold and change us kind of like evolving ones self with a belief.

I NEVER said Hawking gave Higgs Boson the name God Particle. Leon Lederman gave it that name in a book. I get it... I just stated Hawkings wasn't a fan and called it that.

If you could read as well as you can make drugs you would know I say over and over in this thread to leave God to PHILOSOPHY... ya know..that which came before science and Higgs and BIG Pharma.

a reply to: MamaJ

You were not actually clear on how I came to my belief system. Its also off topic so I gave the low hanging grout answer. The long form answer is I went from a non theistic pagan practice to a polytheistic one based on expereinces in life, and events of a mystical nature.

You have repeatedly said "Hawkings has said" rather than post evidence he has. The onus is on you to do so.

If you have read ANY of my posts in this forum, I've said "Sciecne does not care about God". Scientists are people, so some might. But Science does not.

You also went right to "Big Pharma" on me. Do you even know what Big Pharma is? How about Medium and little, or start up companies? Nope you went to "Big Pharma" with no idea who they are.

a reply to: chr0naut

You have yet to illustrate this, rather you have said it is so, and decided that is enough. I don't believe you actually know what atheists do or do not believe, rather you assume, based on a caricature

a reply to: MamaJ

I NEVER said Hawking gave Higgs Boson the name God Particle. Leon Lederman gave it that name in a book. I get it... I just stated Hawkings wasn't a fan and called it that.

it was started as a joke, "god particle" being short for "the goddamned particle" on account of it being so difficult to pin down. naturally, people started slinging stigmas around and romanticizing it. equally naturally, most of these people dont have the slightest about what the particle actually means or does.

a reply to: TzarChasm

To be fair Hawkings is hard to read with his jokes Its his monotone I think In all seriousness, I grow tired of people misquoting scientists, like we see them as high priests? Hawkings has been wrong, and owned it.

a reply to: Noinden

Perhaps taking one of your eye patches off will let you see as well

Hey now, I resemble that remark!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

To be fair Hawkings is hard to read with his jokes

Its his monotone I think

In all seriousness, I grow tired of people misquoting scientists, like we see them as high priests? Hawkings has been wrong, and owned it.

to be fair, it wasnt professor hawkings joke. lederman has a sense of humor that doesnt quite stay inside the neat little lines that make dense research articles so compelling to read.